Jay Gruden and the new Philosophy - and all things coaching...hell it is offseason after all.

[chipwhich]

Are we really complaining about Gibbs not getting two winning seasons in a row?  Take a look around the league.  Unless you're in a weak division with a HoF caliber qb, you're going to have ups and downs.  Schotty had one year, he probably would have won here, that was an example of Danny bringing down the ax too soon.  And a college coach that everyone wanted?  Please.  We all know he was the architect of his own demise here.  I don't think you can blame Spurrier's lack of success on anyone but himself.

 

I want us to draft players as well, everyone does.  What I also want is to be rid of the tampa crew that has ran us into the ground the past few years.  If Gruden has another poor season he absolutely should be let go.

 

I think you are missing the point.  I am not complaining about Gibbs.  Our problem *might* be coaching but we will never fix our problem by continually changing coaches.  Your thought process continues to be that if we had only had the right coach we would be much better.  That's just not the case.  Our cupboards have been bare.  We haven't been very talented.

 

Hopefully we go through 3-5 years of continually drafting, building depth at positions, and hire new coaches (if necessary) from a position of strength where we have talent but not the right leadership.  Gibbs did win 2 out of 3 seasons but he spent like a drunken sailor, traded picks like a drunken sailor, built teams the wrong way to continually win in the NFL.

 

With regards to Spurrier, my point was he was a coach a lot of teams wanted.  He wasn't a good coach and wouldn't make a successful NFL coach, but the TALENT he was provided was laughable.  No coach could win with those teams.

[Skinsinparadise]

I am all in on blaming the front office-GM situation for the bulk of the teams issues but I don't give a pass to most of the coaches in the process especially since Marty, Gibbs, and Shanny got personnel control as part of their deals.  Outside of Belichick, I can't think of a single team that has succeeded in recent times with that arrangement.    Danny kept on trying to do things via the front office the wrong way and somehow he expected what didn't work for others would work for him.  I think most of our coaches were complicit in that dysfunction as opposed to being victims of it.  Ironically one of the things I do like about Jay is he doesn't mess with personnel.

 

I think though on the Jay stuff reading the posts and thinking about my own, I think the debate is stuck on a stalemate based on people having two very different premises.   

 

Premise A:  Can you judge a head coach as an isolated variable in the soup even though there are other arguably larger variables influencing it.  Some say (me included), yeah you can judge the waiter in his own right even though they work for a bad restaurant owner and bad chef.

 

Premise B:  How can you judge the waiter when the chef isn't cooking the food on time, the morale at the restaurant stinks and heck the other previous waiters struggled, too -- give the guy a break.

 

I like this analogy because to me we can be aware of all the problems in the restaurant but at the same time notice things that are exclusive to the waiter, does the waiter take my order right, does he or she have a good attitude, etc.   Now if the waiter brings the food late, he deserves a break that's not on him but the chef.

 

I am not saying Premise B is wrong but being among the believers in Premise A, I think its tough to throw either theory as being miles off the mark.  There is logic in both points IMO.    But personally am a big believer in theory A.

[The Wicked Wop]

Are we really complaining about Gibbs not getting two winning seasons in a row?  Take a look around the league.  Unless you're in a weak division with a HoF caliber qb, you're going to have ups and downs.  Schotty had one year, he probably would have won here, that was an example of Danny bringing down the ax too soon.  And a college coach that everyone wanted?  Please.  We all know he was the architect of his own demise here.  I don't think you can blame Spurrier's lack of success on anyone but himself.

 

I want us to draft players as well, everyone does.  What I also want is to be rid of the tampa crew that has ran us into the ground the past few years.  If Gruden has another poor season he absolutely should be let go.

 

People need to remember Gibbs was part of the FO problem when he came back. He could easily have sat down with Dan and said Dan when we were at our best we had a strong, and designated GM (and Cerrato wasn't it).  Dan would have most likely listened to that advice and made it his mantra.  Instead Gibbs wanted to be personally involved in it, and the Archuleta's and TJ Ducketts came in, and we were giving away picks and money like candy during Holloween.

 

I'd bring Scott and Jay back if the team goes 1-15 this year. In fact, I'd pray for their return. Consistency and stability are desperately needed around here. Even if we have to suck for another year or two. 

 

I think its less likely that we win just 1 game as 11+.  Having said that Scot is not a person the Skins can fire for some time unless he has problems with drinking again. He's made it known

 

1) how we need to build a team - much of it over time, but a jump start via FA (without overspending......just good, tough players) brings the 

2) the type of team were build - it maybe a passing league but having a strong running attack will wear you down over time and become the perfect compliment to a team skilled in passing, we also need strong lines to win the battles up front. Think of the 49ers, Seahawks, Steelers, Ravens

3) We need to constantly be competing at nearly every position to get the best 11 guys on the field at anytime

4) We need to constantly be improving via the draft to take the need off of FA and keeping our own, and when we can't we have a younger guy behind him ready for their chance.

 

 

 

Have you ever sat down with the man and talked with him? How well do you know him? Also, just because BB is a great manipulator and got lucky enough to draft Tom Brady (before you say he had great insight drafting Tom, BB himself said had he known how good TB would be he would have draft him in the 1st rd.) does not make him intelligent. He has after all been stupid enough to get caught cheating twice.

 

 

Precisely, basically forming  understanding of someone from afar from a show like hard knocks is not the wisest. I'm sorry if I'm at work and a camera crew is following me around, I don't see how I'm going to carry out my job, in a way where I'm ignoring the camera's so they understand the real me, while trying to train players, while not wanting to give away to much, while not wanting to look like a prick, but might be one.........I mean just give me a break I think I'd have an LAI score of to

 

Where it begins and ends with me, is he made the rookie mistakes which were no where close to Jim Zorn's rookie mistakes which he was making in his 2nd year.  He's hard headed in the sense he wanted to play and win a certain way, and likely come to the realization by talking with SM, that regardless of what he agreed to when hired, this is how its going to be..............

[Laron Burgundy]

The problem with using pts is that it could be quite anecdotal. Those teams were very Def running teams. They did not score a lot of pts. Most of their games were going to be close as their running game takes time off the clock. I used the 1st season with NE as it was the start of his career before he started winning, not to add to the numbers.

 

Also, assuming their FO was worse is completely ignoring that the Browns were just a year removed from a pretty good run. He took over in 1991. Between 1985 and 1989 the Browns made the POs every season, winning their division 4 of those 5 times. So that's 5 of 6 season in the POs just before BB took over. We had 1 winning season in the 6 seasons before. Yea, Gruden inherited a better team.... not!

 

That whole he sought out the cameras thing is purely speculative on your part. Could be the cameras sought him out because as I understand it, he is very active in practices and it made for better TV. Finally, I have met people without a HS degree who had a somewhat limited vocabulary because of it but were very intelligent. Again, it's purely speculative on your part.

 

Bottom line is you have a perception of Gruden which is yours to make. Where I have a problem is when people start stating it like it's a fact. You are more than free to come to your own conclusions and if you want to believe he is a blithering idiot have at it. Just don't state as fact. 

 

Nowhere did I say he was a blithering idiot, but I don't think anyone, while being honest with themselves, would say he's even top half for coaches.  Gruden also was at Louisville for 4 years, it would be incorrect to compare him to someone who is uneducated.  It's fine if you think you can't possibly determine a general idea of intelligence from hearing and seeing someone talk, but I disagree.  How did you know those people without a HS degree were very intelligent?  Surely you didn't make them take a standardized test.

 

You don't have to accept point differential if you really think wins and losses are the best factor in determining how good a team is, but analytical services would disagree with you, as would vegas when trying to predict future seasons.

 

Also, yes, the browns had a pretty solid roster years before he got there, but then they aged out, as all rosters do.  The team he inherited was not the team that went to the playoffs.  It would be like if a coach inherited the 2012 steelers.  Sure, they had gone to the playoffs in 8 of the last 11 years, but that team had aged out and they needed to find replacements to get back there.  Unlike that, most of our talent is young.

[Laron Burgundy]

As for your "great player" analogy, that fails because he's had a much more consistent background with good to great coaches whereas his player personnel acquisition has been all over the place. So even if he was AROUND great players, he was also around a lot of bad ones he was supposedly at the helm of selecting (in Tampa, mainly). The same can't be said about the coaches he's been around.

So Allen has been a known when it comes to player personnel. He's always been seen as a guy who will work with his coaches and give them more say over it, while handling the cap directly. He essentially admitted, last year, that Brown and Campbell would be running their respective shows. But he's an unknown when it comes to coaches, and all we do have is his past experience with them which cannot be taken as a negative overall. I can see if you want to be neutral on it, but I lean towards it being a net positive for sure.

And your speculation on the Scot hire means nothing. You can keep typing away about what you think and how "it was likely Dan", but we have direct comments from both Scot and Allen that Allen hired him. Never mind the fact that he mentioned he wanted Scot last year but he wasn't available.

But I fully expect you to continue to ignore that, too.

 

I completely agree with that first bolded line, as you can't say he was at the helm for selecting any of the coaches that he worked with.  Probably wasn't even in the same room when those guys were interviewed.

 

Put another way, my dad was an air traffic controller, I spent plenty of time around air traffic controllers.  Good ones, the ones who made it to O'hare.  Would I assume I'm qualified to hire air traffic controllers?  Not a bit.  Certainly I know the profile of good candidates better than someone not involved in it, but I'm not going to be compared to people who have no idea what they are doing.  Just like Allen isn't being compared to average Joes off the street.  You can say he has experience, but I'd really love to hear how we should emulate the oakland or tampa front offices.

[Laron Burgundy]

Precisely, basically forming  understanding of someone from afar from a show like hard knocks is not the wisest. I'm sorry if I'm at work and a camera crew is following me around, I don't see how I'm going to carry out my job, in a way where I'm ignoring the camera's so they understand the real me, while trying to train players, while not wanting to give away to much, while not wanting to look like a prick, but might be one.........I mean just give me a break I think I'd have an LAI score of to

 

Where it begins and ends with me, is he made the rookie mistakes which were no where close to Jim Zorn's rookie mistakes which he was making in his 2nd year.  He's hard headed in the sense he wanted to play and win a certain way, and likely come to the realization by talking with SM, that regardless of what he agreed to when hired, this is how its going to be..............

 

The opinion is based off every single time I've seen him on video.  Now maybe he has a real intellectual side that doesn't come through at all in his mannerisms or speech or decision making or anything else, but come on, you can't tell me he strikes you as among the brightest football minds, and that is all I'm saying.  From what I can ascertain, he is not the sharpest coach in the league.  The amount of denial on that is absurd.  It's not even "he sounds like he's a step above everyone else, I don't know what you're talking about" or "he sounds pretty average to me" it's "so what if he sounds dumb for a head coach, doesn't mean he IS dumb."

[goskins10]

Nowhere did I say he was a blithering idiot, but I don't think anyone, while being honest with themselves, would say he's even top half for coaches.  Gruden also was at Louisville for 4 years, it would be incorrect to compare him to someone who is uneducated.  It's fine if you think you can't possibly determine a general idea of intelligence from hearing and seeing someone talk, but I disagree.  How did you know those people without a HS degree were very intelligent?  Surely you didn't make them take a standardized test.

 

You don't have to accept point differential if you really think wins and losses are the best factor in determining how good a team is, but analytical services would disagree with you, as would vegas when trying to predict future seasons.

 

Also, yes, the browns had a pretty solid roster years before he got there, but then they aged out, as all rosters do.  The team he inherited was not the team that went to the playoffs.  It would be like if a coach inherited the 2012 steelers.  Sure, they had gone to the playoffs in 8 of the last 11 years, but that team had aged out and they needed to find replacements to get back there.  Unlike that, most of our talent is young.

 

I never said you called him a blithering idiot. I said you could if you wanted. I was making a point. I found out they were very smart by getting to know them over time. Yes, you can get to know peoples level of intelligence by watching them. But we have very little to watch on gruden. That is, has been, and will  be my point that you keep wanting to ignore. You stated you have made up your mind based on interviews and a few hard knocks spots. So far that is just not enough data unless you already have made up your mind and just don't like him.

 

I promise I am not bringing politics into this just using the person to make a point - To this day many people call former President Jimmy Carter a "stupid peanut farmer." In fact he is a degreed physicist, a true rocket scientist. He never sounded great in front of TV monitors.

 

And really, "aged out" "years before".  Let's be a little dramatic with our excuse making. If he were that good at the time he would have kept them good. Again, you are making excuses when I have facts.

 

Those same services while they use pts as part of the equation they also use many other criteria. They don't use pts only more than they use wins/losses only. But the simplest and most fundamental measure is and always will be wins and losses. And BB stunk it up the 1st 6 yrs of his career before he really took off.

 

Just admit you don't like the guy so you have decided he is stupid.

[TSO]

I completely agree with that first bolded line, as you can't say he was at the helm for selecting any of the coaches that he worked with. Probably wasn't even in the same room when those guys were interviewed.

Put another way, my dad was an air traffic controller, I spent plenty of time around air traffic controllers. Good ones, the ones who made it to O'hare. Would I assume I'm qualified to hire air traffic controllers? Not a bit. Certainly I know the profile of good candidates better than someone not involved in it, but I'm not going to be compared to people who have no idea what they are doing. Just like Allen isn't being compared to average Joes off the street. You can say he has experience, but I'd really love to hear how we should emulate the oakland or tampa front offices.

Is this all you do? Just make up the arguments and positions for the other person and then focus intently on them?

It's actually impressive how you manage to direct the conversation. Annoying, but impressive.

Let me rewind here. Not for you because I know it'll have next to no effect, but for everyone else reading this.

You essentially said Allen's incompetence is a sign of Gruden's, since he was his hire.

I made the point that Allen's incompetence is only a known when it comes to player personnel, and that you can't assume he's incompetent at hiring coaches just because of that. He clearly has other skills, and his experience with some good to great coaches is actually a positive, not a negative in terms of assessing his ability there.

Nothing you have said in this conversation refutes that, and you've attempted to divert the discussion from that main point numerous times, the most recent attempt here in this post with your "I'd like to hear how he should emulate Oakland and Tampa's FOs".

And, yes, knowing your dad was an air traffic controller, and that you spent your life working in the air travel industry, and you were even an air traffic controller at one point, I'd assume you'd have a good idea about what an air traffic controller should be about. Especially if you've operated within upper management levels and have, at the very least, been around their hires or directly involved with them in the past.

That's how that analogy would work. All of that would be a positive were you ever in a position to have to find an air traffic controller. Doesn't mean you'll find the perfect one. But it certainly is a positive.

[Laron Burgundy]

Is this all you do? Just make up the arguments and positions for the other person and then focus intently on them?

It's actually impressive how you manage to direct the conversation. Annoying, but impressive.

Let me rewind here. Not for you because I know it'll have next to no affect, but for everyone else reading this.

You essentially said Allen's incompetence is a sign of Gruden's, since he was his hire.

I made the point that Allen's incompetence is only a known when it comes to player personnel, and that you can't assume he's incompetent at hiring coaches just because of that. He clearly has other skills, and his experience with some good to great coaches is actually a positive, not a negative in terms of assessing his ability there.

Nothing you have said in this conversation refutes that, and you've attempted to divert the discussion from that main point numerous times, the most recent attempt here in this post with your "I'd like to hear how he should emulate Oakland and Tampa's FOs".

And, yes, knowing your dad was an air traffic controller, and that you spent your life working in the air travel industry, and you were even an air traffic controller at one point, I'd assume you'd have a good idea about what an air traffic controller should be about. Especially if you've operated within upper management levels and have, at the very least, been around their hires or directly involved with them in the past.

That's how that analogy would work. All of that would be a positive were you ever in a position to have to find an air traffic controller. Doesn't mean you'll find the perfect one. But it certainly is a positive.

 

Once an air traffic controller at a very small airport paid to hire someone for O'hare, to take the analogy further.

 

Look, I've as much said, almost verbatim, his ability to evaluate coaches is an unknown, but early returns are negative.  You say his ability to evaluate coaches is an unknown, but he has a history around good coaches.  We're closer on this than you realize.  I think his past is nice, but that doesn't really mean anything about his own abilities.  His actual moves (Haslett and Gruden) are pointing towards incompetency.  

 

Maybe Gruden turns it around, completely in the realm of possibility I suppose, but when we're talking about Allen's actual results, and not his background, he's so far picked a head coach who had one of the worst seasons in redskins history and he at least had a hand in retaining Haslett, who has fielded historically bad defenses.

 

And no, I actually think it's a perfect circle of incompetency.  Gruden's incompetency is a sign of Allen's which is a sign of Gruden's.  Sure, it's circular logic, but when the shoe fits.

[TSO]

Maybe Gruden turns it around, completely in the realm of possibility I suppose, but when we're talking about Allen's actual results, and not his background, he's so far picked a head coach who had one of the worst seasons in redskins history and he at least had a hand in retaining Haslett, who has fielded historically bad defenses.

 

Well, Gruden had "one of the worst seasons in Redskins history" after one of the worst seasons in Redskins history. And as small a feat to accomplish as this is, he did win one more game. That's with no legit GM, a messy FO structure above him, a sized down coaching staff and no identity. Things that have all changed since the Scot hire. Would've been awesome if he overcame all of that and proved himself to be one of, if not the, best coach in the NFL today, but alas, he had to work through the issues like so many other first-year Head Coaches.

 

So, I'd say, the more legitimate position would be "the jury is still out", and not evidence of incompetent hiring on Allen's part. I think the right criticism here is not the Gruden hire itself, but the structure he allowed a rookie Head Coach to walk into. Not to mention retaining Haslett and putting Gruden in the position of having to make a decision on his good friend (someone who also had hired him before).  

 

So yeah, Haslett, I completely agree with. That's definitely a stain on his record. 

 

And I'm shocked you actually wrote that Gruden turning it around is "completely in the realm of possibility". Well, you suppose, right?

 

Still, it was nice to see that. If I may... please, more of that, less blanket statements.

[The Wicked Wop]

The opinion is based off every single time I've seen him on video.  Now maybe he has a real intellectual side that doesn't come through at all in his mannerisms or speech or decision making or anything else, but come on, you can't tell me he strikes you as among the brightest football minds, and that is all I'm saying.  From what I can ascertain, he is not the sharpest coach in the league.  The amount of denial on that is absurd.  It's not even "he sounds like he's a step above everyone else, I don't know what you're talking about" or "he sounds pretty average to me" it's "so what if he sounds dumb for a head coach, doesn't mean he IS dumb."

 

 

 

Like anything it's all in the eyes of the beholder. I'm not here as this Jay Gruden PR rep, actually far from if you saw some of my posts 3/4 of the way during last season as I was just about done with him (for better or worse), but I acknowledged a few weeks later it was short sighed, and the team did continue to play hard for him for the remainder of the year, except that sorry excuse of a game against the cowboys where everyone looked ready to go home

 

I was pretty happy with the freshness Jay brought to the job initially, especially coming from a year earlier when we had true egomaniac leading the team. I was really pissed however in that he always seemed to imply when starting he would use things that worked well for the team in the past and fit our personnel while adding his own touch which turned out not to be the case as it took until the Philly game that he understood you could win a game by running first .......and by the public display/circus he created with the RG3 comments.

 

In the end when I hear him talk strictly about the game he remembers things missed, and achieved without grasping at straws. Is he the most articulate, no, but again what does that mean.  A very simple mistake some people make is assuming being articulate, or well spoken implies the person is very sharp.  Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not, but remember even if they are, that's only part of the football game. Can they motivate? can they gain the respect of their players? and coaches? can he game plan? can they make in game adjustments? can they make quick good decisions? You could be the smartest of the bunch, but poor at 2 or 3 other things and find yourself unemployed very easy.  That's why even trying to make an educated guess in this regard is likely a waste of time unless you know and deal with the person on a regular basis

 

To me a perfect example is Brian Billick. Yeah he has a Super Bowl ring.........because of a defense which he did not assemble or coach, but if you ever heard him talk he most certainly thinks himself to be very smart (if not brilliant). Yet for all his success and beleif that he was a sharp coordinator at one time, finding an owner, GM, or team of players that would get behind him is impossible. This happened when he was still in his prime years at the time as he was only about 53 or 54 when fired.

 

Remember Jim Fassel not a sexy pick but I could see the reasoning of him being a cerebral coach, but again fired at 53. He got a hard look by us, but hasn't come close to another chance.

 

Lastly Shanny, Intelligent egomaniac by all means but absolutely incompetent in certain areas, thus by all means his career is now over. 

 

We can play this silly game all day long but I've wasted enough time making the simple point that intelligence is only one aspect of being a coach, and it can mean very little if other aspects are missing such as being a leader, being creative, and motivating men, and much more, some or none of which might be tied to ones actual intelligence.

 

 

 

[Laron Burgundy]

Well, Gruden had "one of the worst seasons in Redskins history" after one of the worst seasons in Redskins history. And as small a feat to accomplish as this is, he did win one more game. That's with no legit GM, a messy FO structure above him, a sized down coaching staff and no identity. Things that have all changed since the Scot hire. Would've been awesome if he overcame all of that and proved himself to be one of, if not the, best coach in the NFL today, but alas, he had to work through the issues like so many other first-year Head Coaches.

 

So, I'd say, the more legitimate position would be "the jury is still out", and not evidence of incompetent hiring on Allen's part. I think the right criticism here is not the Gruden hire itself, but the structure he allowed a rookie Head Coach to walk into. Not to mention retaining Haslett and putting Gruden in the position of having to make a decision on his good friend (someone who also had hired him before).  

 

So yeah, Haslett, I completely agree with. That's definitely a stain on his record. 

 

And I'm shocked you actually wrote that Gruden turning it around is "completely in the realm of possibility". Well, you suppose, right?

 

Still, it was nice to see that. If I may... please, more of that, less blanket statements.

 

And I agree the jury is still out, but it's leaning one way so far.

 

And while Gruden didn't have an ideal situation to walk in to (most coaches don't as usually their predecessor was fired), I think he shares a considerable amount of the blame for last season as well.  

 

Yes, he was a first year head coach, but it's almost unprecedented that a head coach has a brother who was also a head coach (I can't think of brothers that have been head coaches off the top of my head, so perhaps it is truly unprecedented), that's an incredible advantage to use as a sounding board for a first time coach.  Instead we had some pretty awful rookie mistakes from him that I just don't think Jon would have recommended.  Which brings up a few questions for me.

 

Did he not talk to Jon about the job?  That seems like an awful use of resources.

 

Did he ignore Jon's advice?  That, too, seems like a guy who I'd have doubts on.

 

These weren't spur of the moment decisions either, but things like having no qb coach or retaining Haslett or promoting an inexperienced OC or riding the qb carousel (Jon may have recommended that one though, but I'd have to think if there is one thing Jon regrets from Tampa it would be playing whack-a-mole with his qb's).  For much of that Jay was the main person to blame.

 

Again, he didn't inherit an ideal situation, but he didn't exactly make the best of his situation either.

[Laron Burgundy]

 

We can play this silly game all day long but I've wasted enough time making the simple point that intelligence is only one aspect of being a coach, and it can mean very little if other aspects are missing such as being a leader, being creative, and motivating men, and much more, some or none of which might be tied to ones actual intelligence.

 

 

Well said and I had made a comment earlier that one could make the argument that you don't have to be among the brightest to win.  I think the smartest ones are among the most consistent though.  Guys like Carroll, Belichick, and Kelly are a cut above other coaches.  There's a lot more that goes in to being a coach than pure analytical intelligence, but it was, referring to my original post on the topic, one of the things that turned me off on Jay as a head coach.

 

I disagree that you need a large sample size to determine a general idea of intelligence though.  I know in modern society judging someone is taboo, but humankind is very perceptive at picking up traits of an individual.  You can tell quite a bit about a person within moments, one university study found that people were generally accurate in gauging the intelligence of a man just by looking at a still picture of his face.  Sure, you could be wrong about someone, but that tends to be more the exception.  

 

Maybe Jay is the exception, but I don't think it's a preconceived dislike of him that makes me think he's not bright.  For instance, I didn't particularly like James Franklin for the job, but I think he's very bright.  It's what I perceive from Jay, and admittedly it could be wrong, but he just does not appear to be quick-witted.

[skins island connection]

Well said and I had made a comment earlier that one could make the argument that you don't have to be among the brightest to win.  I think the smartest ones are among the most consistent though.  Guys like Carroll, Belichick, and Kelly are a cut above other coaches.  There's a lot more that goes in to being a coach than pure analytical intelligence, but it was, referring to my original post on the topic, one of the things that turned me off on Jay as a head coach.

 

I disagree that you need a large sample size to determine a general idea of intelligence though.  I know in modern society judging someone is taboo, but humankind is very perceptive at picking up traits of an individual.  You can tell quite a bit about a person within moments, one university study found that people were generally accurate in gauging the intelligence of a man just by looking at a still picture of his face.  Sure, you could be wrong about someone, but that tends to be more the exception.  

 

Maybe Jay is the exception, but I don't think it's a preconceived dislike of him that makes me think he's not bright.  For instance, I didn't particularly like James Franklin for the job, but I think he's very bright.  It's what I perceive from Jay, and admittedly it could be wrong, but he just does not appear to be quick-witted.

 

 IMO, the biggest benefit for success is players really believing in their coach.

 We've all heard players saying they'd run through a brick wall for their coach; if the coach can convince the player into their way of thinking, that player will actually believe that he's right, and generally work harder to please their coach.

 

 Any one of us on this forum could step in as a coach, and the results would not be good [ not speaking badly of anyone here, just the way it is ] but we would have a much bigger picture of the mental capacity of a coach and his ability to reach his players.

 

Players seemingly respect older or successful coaches; young OCs or DCs stretching their wings into the HC field quickly find its not as easy; some do make it, but they find themselves softening to players to a degree, being they were once the main guy the players saw. A few of those coaches who stick to their guns, surround themselves with similar-minded personnel tend to eventually make it.

 

the trick is the ability to hang around long enough in this win-now league.

[LD0506]

Again, we try to analyze a coach (this time) in a vacuum and draw some deep, meaningful conclusions from it, when the context and organizational resources around him have an overbearing impact. There has been so much wrong or just missing from the Skins for so long that I can't see how anyone could make sense of it. Yeah, I get it, I've been baffled, frustrated and outright pissed off too, for too long, but none of that leads to any enlightenment.

 

Allen has had ups and downs in his career w/ several teams, yet is still employed in one of the more viciously Darwinian fields extant. He must shoulder some of it, but it can be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to assigning blame. Quite often competent, able people just don't click, not due to lack of ability but for a variety of reasons, ie. differing personalities, viewpoint, attitude or agendas. All I want to judge BA on is what he does here for us.

 

The same w/ Gruden, whatever got him the job don't mean squat, how are you going to work for us? He better have learned something from last year or he'll be out the door, that's just the way things work, but you have to give him the opportunity to show whether he learned, learned enough, learned the right things and can apply them.

 

IMO TheDan has shown growth, that he has learned some essential things that he didn't bring to the franchise. Time will tell if they are permanent changes but again, he had to learn them. We needed an Allen to manage TheDan's learning curve to even be able to consider a GM hire. McClue is not going to fall on his sword for Gruden, but at the same time is making changes to give the HC et. al. the tools to do the job.

 

It's synergistic, the separate parts have to mesh, ownership has to listen to President/GM has to make resources (the right resources) available for the coaching staff to manage the team, etc. etc. Putting individuals under a microscope to deliver a verdict on their worth or intelligence is of little value.

 

Let's see, then we'll know and we can have much more heated, substantial debates.

[TSO]

And I agree the jury is still out, but it's leaning one way so far.

 

And while Gruden didn't have an ideal situation to walk in to (most coaches don't as usually their predecessor was fired), I think he shares a considerable amount of the blame for last season as well.  

 

..........................................

 

Did he not talk to Jon about the job?  That seems like an awful use of resources.

 

Did he ignore Jon's advice?  That, too, seems like a guy who I'd have doubts on.

 

These weren't spur of the moment decisions either, but things like having no qb coach or retaining Haslett or promoting an inexperienced OC or riding the qb carousel (Jon may have recommended that one though, but I'd have to think if there is one thing Jon regrets from Tampa it would be playing whack-a-mole with his qb's).  For much of that Jay was the main person to blame.

 

Again, he didn't inherit an ideal situation, but he didn't exactly make the best of his situation either.

 

 

Saying Gruden didn't have an ideal situation to walk into is like saying the janitor at an Indian restaurant doesn't have an ideal situation cleaning up the restroom. You're downplaying a lot of ****, man, lol.

 

As for the Jon Gruden issue... you ignore the likeliest possibility. That he did talk to his brother AND didn't ignore his advice. We have no idea, either way, but Jon has said Jay talks to him and vice versa.

 

It's not at all unlikely that Jay thought the situation here wasn't nearly as bad as it was (consistent with Allen's talk last offseason, that they were closer to the 2012 team than anything else) and that Jon wouldn't have disagreed.

 

But this is all speculation, in the end. I really would rather not go there and don't think you should have, either. You assume way too much about what Jon thought at any given moment and are projecting onto him your ideas, in my opinion. 

[Laron Burgundy]

Saying Gruden didn't have an ideal situation to walk into is like saying the janitor at an Indian restaurant doesn't have an ideal situation cleaning up the restroom. You're downplaying a lot of ****, man, lol.

 

As for the Jon Gruden issue... you ignore the likeliest possibility. That he did talk to his brother AND didn't ignore his advice. We have no idea, either way, but Jon has said Jay talks to him and vice versa.

 

It's not at all unlikely that Jay thought the situation here wasn't nearly as bad as it was (consistent with Allen's talk last offseason, that they were closer to the 2012 team than anything else) and that Jon wouldn't have disagreed.

 

But this is all speculation, in the end. I really would rather not go there and don't think you should have, either. You assume way too much about what Jon thought at any given moment and are projecting onto him your ideas, in my opinion. 

 

I just don't think the redskins situation is that much worse than other lower tier teams in the league.  You make it out that we're the absolute worst team to work for.  Like I said, nearly every new head coach is walking in to a losing team.

 

Also I don't figure that's the likeliest scenario.  All 4 situations I pointed out, choices Jay made, were things I just don't see a seasoned coach making the same decision on.  I find it hard to believe Jon, a former head coach, would have told Jay, for instance, that he doesn't need a qb coach, that two guys who have never been qb coaches before could handle the responsibility on top of their other responsibilities.  

 

Sure, it's speculation, but come on, even non-coaches would have said, at the very least, that it was unwise.  That great bosses delegate responsibilities to others instead of micromanaging.  That is, again, pretty basic knowledge on how to run any organization.

[TSO]

I don't find it hard to believe at all.

And, yes, I do think there is an argument that we're the absolute worst team to work for, lol. I have a lot of history, FO structural issues, and general circus-like atmosphere backing me up there. We don't just lose, we lose with style. And in ways both unimaginable and quite inventive.

That's changing in a huge way now that we have Scot and a normal organizational structure.

To your point, though, you're speculating that it was otherwise because it fits your perceptions, but the team just went through a media war with Shanahan. And while Shanahan was alleviating himself of all blame the team was putting everything on him.

Remember, Haslett was handcuffed, Robert had been victimized, the scouts were ignored, etc...

Allen stated he thought the team was closer to it's 2012 version than it's 2013 one.

That is the situation Gruden came into.

So it isn't at all unlikely that they thought him and McVay (who brought a semblance of consistency) being more hands-on with Robert (who was supposed to be easily developed into a traditional drop back passer and was just misused by the evil Shanahan's), having some cap space to add depth via FA with Brown running that show, and allowing Scott Campbell to run the draft would've pushed them over the top.

A QB coach may have easily been deemed unnecessary by everyone involved because of how they perceived everything wrongly. And while Gruden is partly to blame for that, he was hardly the guy who spearheaded this type of thinking when you look at the organization's words and messages at the end of 2013.

So, yeah, who knows what Jon was thinking there as well. You're simply speculating here (as am I) and, like I said, I'd rather not get into that.

But it looks like you want to jump in head first. So I don't think Jon thinks what you think he thinks or thought, mmmmkay?

[Skinsinparadise]

I don't know if you guys have been following Mark Bullock's game by game breakdowns he's been doing about last season, some of his comments are subjective which you can take or leave but if you are into pure stats, he is going to town in multiple posts about plays in shot gun, versus not, formations, the whole drill.

 

Mark Bullock ‏@MarkBullockNFL  19h19 hours ago

Discussion in comments of my latest post (http://wpo.st/4-KL0 ), Gruden vs Kyle Shanahan play calling. My thoughts

 

 

Mark Bullock ‏@MarkBullockNFL  Jun 2

Last time I'll tweet it today, I promise. Made my #Redskins spreadsheet studying their 2014 offense public. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BDeFMRVaczsc5ehynA0yYMRPSa78ueehNn6czGOgkiY/edit?usp=sharing …

[Jumbo]

This article is drawing praise from some--I could put it here or in the Rg3 thread, but 'm picking here cuz I already did a new one (from this very piece) in the other thread this morning, and want to see if we can revive this as a bit of a generic thread without it turning into a cattle call for another rehash circus--that should be read as a warning. Looking for discussion with some fresher takes, or just read it for value. 

 

 

And holey moley it's from BR 

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2509824-fixing-the-redskins-offense-from-robert-griffin-iii-to-jay-gruden

 

 

 

Jay Gruden is back. Robert Griffin III is his starting quarterback. Like it or not, their awkward dance continues for another year. 

 

Both Griffin and Gruden have to get better at their jobs. Neither Kirk Cousins nor Colt McCoy will ride to anyone's rescue. The nation cannot bear another autumn of press conferences that sound like counseling sessions for the world's worst marriage (though fans in Dallas, Philly and New York enjoy some shameful chuckles). Griffin has to be a better quarterback, Gruden a better coach.

 

But what does that mean? We could talk vaguely about Griffin's footwork (he needs some) and Gruden's play-calling (the Madden 96video game AI would be an upgrade). But we need to drill a little deeper. There are simple, tangible things both Griffin and Gruden can do to upgrade the Redskins offense and get both their franchise and their careers back on the right track.

 

 

Stop the Third-Down Madness

According to Football Outsiders, the Redskins had the worst third-down offense in the NFL. EVER.

 

K, maybe not "ever." The 2004 Bears, with Chad Hutchinson, Craig Krenzel, Jonathan Quinn and Rex Grossman trading snaps, were worse. So were the expansion 2002 Texans, with David Carr absorbing 76 sacks, and the 1992 Seahawks, who finished 2-14 behind Stan Gelbaugh, Kelly Stouffer and Mark McGwire's brother, Dan.

 

Then come the 2014 Redskins. It's a heck of a list to rank fourth upon.

 

Given 197 third-down plays to work with, the Redskins endured:

• Six interceptions: three by Griffin and three by Cousins.

• Seven fumbles: one by Griffin, two by Cousins, two by McCoy, two by receivers after completions. Three of the fumbles were recovered by the Redskins, but when you fall on the ball after getting strip-sacked on 3rd-and-8, well, whoop-de-dang-do.

• Twenty-three sacks: 12 of Griffin, seven of McCoy, four of Cousins. Some of these sacks resulted in the fumbles listed above. Cousins also committed an intentional grounding foul.

• Thirty-five pass completions that did not result in a first down: This tally includes one Niles Paul fumble at the end of a long completion, but also lots of mind-boggling plays like a two-yard Cousins-to-Andre Roberts loss on 3rd-and-1 (a bubble screen gone radically wrong against the Cardinals), plus a dizzying array of seven-yard passes on 3rd-and-15 or so.

• Six scrambles: Five by Griffin and one by McCoy, with only one resulting in a first down.

• Ten handoffs to backs on 3rd-and-1 or 3rd-and-2: Alfred Morris was stuffed three times on 3rd-and-1 (he also converted three times) and had no attempts on 3rd-and-2. Roy Helu Jr. (now in Oakland) and Darrel Young were 4-of-7 on 3rd-and-1 or -2. If you are wondering why Helu and the fullback combined for more short-yardage carries than Morris, get in line.

• Six handoffs on 3rd-and-10 or longer, resulting in zero first downs.

 

All in all, the Redskins faced 38 3rd-and-10 or longer situations. They converted just five first downs.

 

Like a tiny car full of silly clowns, there is a lot to unpack from the Redskins' third-down woes. The whole Redskins offense deserves blame for this catastrophe. That said, there are simple things the Redskins can do to go from historically bad on third downs to merely mediocre:

 

 

The quarterback must hold on to the football: Griffin and the not-so-Supremes need to focus on some basics, like how to grip the football in a collapsing pocket, how to tuck when scrambling and when to say "when" instead of trying to **** and throw. A sack and a punt is still much better than a sack and a fumble.

 

No more one-yard passes on 3rd-and-2. It's one thing to throw short of the sticks on 3rd-and-12 and ask DeSean Jackson or Pierre Garconto make a move. It's another thing to keep throwing short on 3rd-and-4 when the defense knows what's coming.

In the overtime win against the Cowboys in Week 8, Gruden ordered McCoy to throw a quick flat to Jordan Reed on 3rd-and-2 in the fourth quarter. Reed was tackled short of the first down.

 

<edit>

 

 

Neither the quarterback nor the coach need to overhaul everything they do to get the Redskins moving in the right direction. The Redskins already do a few things well offensively. Gruden needs to make changes to put his quarterback in better position to succeed. Griffin then must prove that he can capitalize on those opportunities. They must work in sync, and they need Morris, Callahan and others involved in the Redskins offense to sync up with them.

 

"Working in sync" hasn't been a coach-quarterback strong point in Washington for a long time. But if Gruden and Griffin can find middle ground, they will discover that solutions to their problems are not nearly as complex as they might look.

 

 

There is much much more at the link--graphs, clips, more stats, and a great deal of breadth to the issues covered. Don't just pick one thing that supports the claims you've already made 1000 times for your hero or goat, then quote it here and do a little pookie dance. So stupid and boring. A lot of what's said in the piece has been said by many here, even those of differing "rigidly fixed positions" on Jay or Robert. Read, enjoy, think. 

[Burgold]

I think it belongs here. After all, as much as some praise Cousins and said he did better in Gruden's system. His accuracy dropped 20 percentage points and his QB rating dropped even more on third down (which half doesn't matter). Robert also did terribly on third downs and I don't think Colt was all that great either.

Now, I think a bunch of that can probably be laid at the feet of the o-line. When the defense knows a pass was coming the pass pro became tissue paper strong and about as effective as using that wet tissue paper to haul crates of bowling bowls. Still, at the same time playcalling has to be part of the equation to for good or ill.

 

If it was only Griffin or only Cousins that would be one thing. If it's all of them there's a systematic problem.

[Jumbo]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/wp/2015/07/01/offseason-questions-is-jay-gruden-up-to-the-task-of-turning-the-redskins-around/

 

 

Is Jay Gruden up to the task of turning the Redskins around?

 

 

Believe it or not, Redskins players will report to Richmond for training camp in 28 days.

 

<edit>

 

To kick it off, we put Jay Gruden under the microscope.

 

<edit>

 

The jury is still very much out. Gruden obviously came to Washington with an impressive resume, having won both as a player and coach in the Arena Football League, and then as a head coach in the United Football League. His success continued during three seasons as offensive coordinator of the Cincinnati Bengals. 

 

<edit>

 

Gruden provided only brief glimpses of his abilities as an offensive mind and play-caller. The offense operated at its best in Week 2 against Jacksonville (a win) and Week 3 against Philadelphia (a loss). Those were the only times Washington topped the 30-point mark (41 points against Jacksonville, 34 versus Philly).

 

But otherwise, Gruden found his unit hampered by ineffective quarterback play, turnovers, poor execution in the red zone and on third downs. As a whole, Washington’s team (offense, defense and special teams) under-performed, with a lack of focus, plentiful self-inflicted wounds and poor discipline routinely on display.

 

Many times the coach seemed at a loss for answers.

 

Gruden this offseason went back to the drawing board, examining his philosophies and practices from top to bottom.

 

<edit>

 

Gruden lobbied for help in the front office, and Allen hired Scot McCloughan as general manager, giving the team its first proven team architect since the days of Charley Casserly.

 

Gruden changed strength coaches, firing Ray Wright and replacing him with Mike Clark in hopes that his players will become bigger, stronger, more explosive and more durable going forward.

 

Gruden changed defensive coordinators, parting ways with Jim Haslett and replacing him with Joe Barry, previously the linebackers coach at San Diego.

 

Gruden also brought in a new offensive line coach, replacing Chris Foerster with Bill Callahan, and hired a quarterbacks coach, Matt Cavanaugh, so he could focus more on the big picture, and so offensive coordinator Sean

 

McVay could also more effectively focus on the operation of that unit rather than trying to juggle those duties with quarterback tutelage.

 

Gruden says that during offseason practices, he had a better plan and idea of how he wanted things to operate. He came away from June’s minicamp with the belief that the team has a stronger foundation this year than it did last summer.

 

<edit>

 

Fans have raised the question of whether Gruden should be on the hot seat in only his second season. The many holes that remained on the roster after Year 1 – which McCloughan and Gruden aimed to address his offseason – and the process of filling them could buy the coach additional time.

 

Fortunately for Gruden, he and McCloughan share similar philosophies on how a roster should be constructed.

 

 

 

more at link (mainly filler)

[Koolblue13]

Jumbo, good god that article from the 2nd is harsh. That makes even me, the eternal optimist feel hurt.

[Jumbo]

Harshness and hurt---this is what I offer in a relationship. Buck up, Island Boy. 

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Harshness and hurt---this is what I offer in a relationship. Buck up, Island Boy. 

 

But are you a giver or a receiver?

 

I need to know these things in case we end up bunkered underground together escaping the zombie apocalypse. 

 

Things could get messy enough without any 'surprises.'

 

Hail.